Comments:New Yorker's Obama cover sparks outrage
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
I was under the impression that the New Yorker had a relatively intelligent readership, so they aren't going to believe Obama is actually as terrorist :) It's not their fault that so many other americans are so stupid...
- Agreed. Plus I like to see people squirm for stupid reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.61.169 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
So, why haven't they gotten upset with the Onion yet? :p Fephisto (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Had I not had it pointed out to me by this article, I would have been oblivious of the cover's 'satirical' intent. A drawing of Obama as Osama is not satirical without some kind of context; otherwise it looks like an straightforward expression of agreement with that portrayal. --78.146.219.26 02:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm.
It takes the stick of the opposition, and pokes 'em right in the eye. (Or other sensitive body part of choice!)
WELL DONE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.36.197 (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)